Faulkner v. United States of America, No. 3:2022cv00073 - Document 25 (E.D. Va. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 5/10/2023. (adun, ) (Main Document 25 replaced on 5/10/2023) (adun, ).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Faulkner v. United States of America Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division BENJAMIN FAULKNER, v. Civil Action No. 3:22CV73 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Benjamin Faulkner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Motion to Return Property, (ECF No. 2), pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 4l(g), seeking the return property that was forfeited as part of his criminal case in the United States District for the Middle District of Tennessee. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on October 3, 2022, the Court denied the Motion to Return Property and stated: The Court properly denies a motion for return of property if the defendant lacks entitlement to "lawful possession of the seized property, the property is contraband or subject to forfeiture[,] or the government's need for the property as evidence continues." United States v. Rudisill, 358 F. App'x 421, 421 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 934 F.2d 1048, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 1991)); United States v. Vanhorn, 296 F.3d 713, 719 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Mills, 991 F.2d 609, 612 (9th Cir. 1993)). Here, the record establishes that Faulkner lacks lawful entitlement to [the] return of the property he seeks. The Consent Preliminary Order of Forfeiture and the other documents from the Tennessee District Court demonstrate that Faulkner forfeited the property he seeks here to the United States. Because the United States seized the property and it was forfeited to the United States, Faulkner lacks lawful entitlement to the property, and he cannot avail himself of Rule 41(g) relief. United States v. Soza, 599 F. App'x 69, 70 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted); Rudisill, 358 F. App'x at 421 (citing Van Cauwenberghe, 934 F.2d at 1060-61); United States v. Fitzen, 80 F.3d 387, 389 (9th Cir. 1996) ("It is well-settled that the federal government may defeat a Rule 41([g]) motion by demonstrating that the property is subject to federal forfeiture.") (citation omitted). Faulkner responds that he can utilize Rule 4l(g) to obtain the return of his property because there were defects in the forfeiture proceeding [in] the Tennessee District Court. (ECF No. 16.) This argument fails. Faulkner's property was subject to criminal forfeiture. A "[c]riminal forfeiture is part of a defendant's sentence," United States v. Martin, 662 F.3d 301, 306 (4th Cir. 2011) (citation Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
